AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao appears for the appellant.
Ms. V.Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, appears for respondents No.1 and 3.
Learned counsel Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, appears for respondent No.2.
Sri Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appears for respondents No.4 and 5.
Learned counsel Sri G.V.Ramana Murthy appears for respondent No.6 through video conferencing.
Learned counsel Sri K.Jamali appears for respondent No.11 in the writ petition.
A notice by the Nagar Panchayat Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District, dated 16.12.2014, asking the President of M/s. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Limited, Kuntloor, to submit a reply within three days as to why encroachment of roads be not removed, was made subject matter of W.P.No.6326 of 2015. The interim order of status quo remained till the impugned judgment was passed on 10.02.2026, inter alia, directing as under:
“10.This Court initially granted a status quo in this matter. Upon reviewing the counter-affidavit and the petitioner’s layout plan, it is found that the area is not a gated community, and all the roads of the layout have been handed over to and shall be maintained by the Municipality, making them accessible to neighbouring layouts.
11.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner should still be given an opportunity to be heard before passing any final orders, and the official respondents are directed to follow the due process of law. There is no order as to costs.”
Being aggrieved, the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, has preferred this appeal.
Respondents No.4 and 5 have been succeeded by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), who have to act upon the aforesaid notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, counter affidavits have been filed by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), GHMC, respondent No.6 and respondent No.11 therein. The dispute raised before the learned writ court was whether the subject property forms part of the duly approved gated community layout or not. Construction of a road in a layout which is not a gated community cannot be allowed was the stand of respondents No.2 and 4. This issue whether the layout was a gated community or not should have to be left to be decided by the appropriate authority which issued the notice based upon the materials placed before him. However, since pleadings had been completed and stand of the respondents had also been brought on record, the learned writ court went on to observe at paragraph 10 that the area is not a gated community and all the roads of the layout have been handed over and shall be maintained by the Municipality making them accessible to the neighbouring layouts. The learned writ court dismissed the writ petition, however, allowing the official respondents to follow due process of law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the final orders, in effect, to take a decision on the impugned notice.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the observations made at paragraph 10 are likely to influence the decision to be taken by the appropriate authority, which is now GHMC. Therefore, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the attendant material facts as are placed from the record.
In the compass of the facts noted above, since the challenge was only to a notice which threatened demolition of the boundary wall on the layout whether gated community or not, and the learned writ court left it open to the official respondents to follow due process of law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing final orders, the observations made at paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment would amount to comments on the merits of the issue whether the layout was a gated community or not, which was unnecessary while deciding the writ petition.
The matter has remained pending for eleven years since the impugned notice was issued. Therefore, we are of the considered view that a decision, if not already taken, should be arrived at by the concerned official respondents – GHMC, now the successor of the Nagar Panchayat, in accordance with law within a strict time frame, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without being influenced by the observations made at paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. Till the decision upon the impugned notice is taken, no coercive steps be taken pursuant thereto in the meantime.
During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA that the appellant has filed another writ petition i.e., W.P.No.16566 of 2026, with the following prayer:
“...to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the existing compound wall of petitioners Prajay Gulmohar Gated Community Welfare Society colony situated in Sy. Nos.112/P, 113/P and 114/P at Prajay Gulmohar, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing any prior notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without following due process of law and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.6326 of 2015 dated 10.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish further the existing petitioners colony compound wall without following due process of law and pass...”
The aforesaid writ petition is still pending. Therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the nature of the challenge made therein. However, a copy of the instant judgment with an office note be placed along with the records of the said writ petition pending before the concerned court.
The instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.